Well from my personal experiences, nobody likes Catholic schools in District 6 (take this website for example). So I would generally think if there is a way to stick it to 'em, that is exactly what would be done if given the opportunity. So the fact that it didn't happen, tells me there really wasn't anything there to begin with.

You can't always bury you heard in the sand, gotta stay above it and look around.

Now, maybe it was just poorly worded, but the sentence about, (paraphrasing) ... because the parents and students didn't comment, the accusations were unfounded.

Wait, what? Is that how it works? Just keep your piehole shut, mum's the word, and the accusations just,...go away.

Pretty soft "investigation", at best.

Like asking the fox, with feathers hanging out of his mouth, if he saw anybody eat the chickens. He doesn't answer....

Unfounded, no chickens eaten here.

Soft “invenstigation”. So you have first hand knowledge of the investigation???? When you want something to be you can twist any words to make yourself feel better.... as much as a lot of people would find joy to bring down the Cathloic schools. Assume a lot of these “transfers” come from public schools.... why would they want to leave their home schools ??? In some cases parents drive kids a long way to get to these private schools back and forth. That takes a commitment over the years along with the tuition and the school taxes for their home school... oh wait they don’t pay to go to these private schools right???? Same inside information you got from the “soft” investigation.

I don't have any first hand knowledge.I was pointing out that, At Least the way it was worded in the article, it looked like the "investigation" involved reading a statement prepared by the school (the accused), and an unsuccessful attempt to get a statement from the "supposed recruits", and their parents.

In my opinion, IF that was the extent of the investigation, then yes, I would call that soft.

I don't have any first hand knowledge.I was pointing out that, At Least the way it was worded in the article, it looked like the "investigation" involved reading a statement prepared by the school (the accused), and an unsuccessful attempt to get a statement from the "supposed recruits", and their parents.

In my opinion, IF that was the extent of the investigation, then yes, I would call that soft.

You may view those 2 measures as, "an exhaustive investigation."

I do not.

Carry on.

I was not one of the investigators so I don’t “view” anything other than what was reported.... and you admitted to no first hand knowledge... so I hope no one passes any judgements on you.... from what it “looked” like

In terms of potential findings for administrative investigations, "unfounded" for this one is incorrect. Unfounded means that the the incident was investigated and conclusively proved that it did not occur. In this case it was investigated and failed to disclose facts to support the allegation. The correct finding is "not sustained"-it wasn't proven or unproven. The Catholic culture is very well versed in not divulging information so this outcome should come as no surprise. The fact that the PIAA can't classify their findings correctly is equally unsurprising.

Unfounded: The investigation conclusively proved that the act or acts complained of did not occur, or the member named in the allegation was not involved in the act or acts, which may have occurred. Exonerated: The act or acts, which provided the basis for the allegation or complaint occurred, however, the investigation revealed they were justified, lawful, and proper. Not Sustained: The investigation failed to disclose sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation made in the complaint. No Finding: The complainant failed to disclose promised information needed to further the investigation.Sustained: The investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to clearly prove the allegation made in the complaint.

OutsideLookingIn wrote:In terms of potential findings for administrative investigations, "unfounded" for this one is incorrect. Unfounded means that the the incident was investigated and conclusively proved that it did not occur. In this case it was investigated and failed to disclose facts to support the allegation. The correct finding is "not sustained"-it wasn't proven or unproven. The Catholic culture is very well versed in not divulging information so this outcome should come as no surprise. The fact that the PIAA can't classify their findings correctly is equally unsurprising.

Unfounded: The investigation conclusively proved that the act or acts complained of did not occur, or the member named in the allegation was not involved in the act or acts, which may have occurred. Exonerated: The act or acts, which provided the basis for the allegation or complaint occurred, however, the investigation revealed they were justified, lawful, and proper. Not Sustained: The investigation failed to disclose sufficient evidence to clearly prove or disprove the allegation made in the complaint. No Finding: The complainant failed to disclose promised information needed to further the investigation.Sustained: The investigation disclosed sufficient evidence to clearly prove the allegation made in the complaint.